A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:Is that the general consensus about Farrell? I had thought he was well-liked by a lot of Jays fans.

Most of the Jays fans I know didn't particularly like him (and he didn't give them much reason to with his bullpen mismanagement, unnecessary bunt/steal attempts that failed more often than not, and clubhouse discord at the end of the 2012 season). He's not the worst manager in the league by any means (or even the worst manager the Jays have had this decade), but I wasn't a fan. He's more than replaceable (as basically any manager is).

Fair enough. Any idea who the candidates are to replace him?

Sandy alomar jr only because he came second last time. But really it's wide open.

Even without getting anybody back I'm satisfied with Farrell leaving. Bad bullpen management and bad decision-making as far as the running game goes. Strategically he was awful, although he seemed to work well enough with the players. Without getting anything in return I'd consider this a positive move. Getting rid of Lind would have been an extra bonus, but it's too bad Carpenter is gone. Could have been a decent bullpen arm for us. Aviles is just another bench bat that can fill in as a utility infielder. Essentially the same value as Cliff Pennington (weak hitting middle infielder with a few arb eligible years remaining), without having to give up an outfielder that compiled 12 WAR over the past 3 seasons.

The Blue Jays are expected to interview Cleveland bench coach Sandy Alomar Jr. and Baltimore third-base coach DeMarlo Hale for their managerial vacancy.Both Alomar Jr. and Hale were interviewed by the Blue Jays in the winter of 2010 before the job went to John Farrell. Dodgers third base coach Tim Wallach and former Indians manager Manny Acta could also be candidates. It's believed that the Blue Jays have not set up any interviews.

We can't give the hated Sox the manager they wanted for so little. It's going to rub me raw every time we play Boston. We should have held out for a starting pitcher and robbed them blind. If Boston wouldn't do it we should have held out for a lot longer. If Boston went ahead and hired somebody else then we go ahead and release Farrell and eat his contract. We lose very little and keep our pride. I would rather we paid Farrell to sit at home and not have Aviles then what actually happened.

AA is just weak. I'm curious to know if Beeston made this decision or if it was AA. Either way the entire organization looks weak. We should have given Boston the finger and told Farrell to sit his ass down and only given him up if it was clearly highway robbery.

Mookie4ever wrote:The more I think about this the more that I hate it.

Sounds like you've been reading and listening to the ridiculous Toronto media who don't have a clue what they're talking about and are only out to rabble-rouse.

We can't give the hated Sox the manager they wanted for so little. It's going to rub me raw every time we play Boston. We should have held out for a starting pitcher and robbed them blind. If Boston wouldn't do it we should have held out for a lot longer. If Boston went ahead and hired somebody else then we go ahead and release Farrell and eat his contract. We lose very little and keep our pride. I would rather we paid Farrell to sit at home and not have Aviles then what actually happened.

AA is just weak. I'm curious to know if Beeston made this decision or if it was AA. Either way the entire organization looks weak. We should have given Boston the finger and told Farrell to sit his ass down and only given him up if it was clearly highway robbery.

So let's review: You wanted them to hold out for a starting pitcher that Boston would have never paid (he's a manager, not somebody of actual value). And then, if they didn't pay it, to sabotage him for no rational reason after Boston hired somebody else (other than keeping their "pride"), which would have actually made the organization look much worse around baseball.

That option isn't better than what happened (having Boston pay the manager that TOR didn't even want and getting a MLB player in return for the right to do that). The Jays made the right call here...in fact, they made the only call they could have after Farrell expressed that he wanted to move on.

I have to agree with mookie on this one.the Red Sox wanted Farrell, and only Farrell. they wanted Farrell last year, but couldn't get him. they fired Valentine, and before anyone else was even mentioned, they wanted Farrell. they interviewed multiple other guys, but they wanted Farrell. not surprising since Farrell was there before in Boston. I'm not against trading Farrell to the Red Sox, but as bad as the Red Sox wanted Farrel, the Jays only got back a utility infielder. say what?! I'm not saying the Jays could/should have gotten someone substantial, but why Mike Aviles?! IMO the Jays should have gotten back one or more prospects that were going to help more for the future.I don't think it really mattered that Farrell only had 1 year left on his contract, or that he himself wanted to go to Boston, or that he hasn't really done that well while with the Jays. the Red Sox wanted Farrell and they wanted him bad. basically the Jays said here you can have him because we don't want him, and we'll take whatever you give us.

I can see the other side of this... hold out for a better return than Aviles, and there are a couple likely outcomes: a) they cave and we get a better return b) they decline and we fire Farrell once they pick another manager. Both of those result in us not having John Farrell manage this team, and that's a good thing. So putting aside the "reputation" factor, whether you believe it's a good or bad thing to screw over Farrell or to bend to his whim even though he agreed to a contract, we could have gambled at losing Aviles in return for a shot at a better player(s). That alone might be enough to justify holding out.

Also, I don't really get this idea that Farrell would HAVE to be let go if we didn't let him go to Boston. He also wanted to go to Boston after Francona was fired, so how is it different? You can't just say that he doesn't want to be here so we have to get rid of him. By that logic, we had to get rid of him last season. Whether it's 1 or 2 years remaining on his secretive contract doesn't matter much, because I'm sure he would have re-upped with Toronto after he missed out on the Boston job for a second straight year. Especially if he knows that the alternative is being given sent packing without another job to run off to.